People v. Galceran

• Decision Date: 24 February 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 1437
• Citation: 2 Cal.Rptr. 901,178 Cal.App.2d 312
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dennis Eugene GALCERAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 901

2 Cal.Rptr. 901

178 Cal.App.2d 312

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dennis Eugene GALCERAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1437.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Feb. 24, 1960.

Dennis Eugene Galceran, in pro. per., for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GRIFFIN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from an order granting probation after conviction of possession of a narcotic in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. The case was tried before the court sitting without a jury.

The evidence disclosed that at approximately 11:30 p. m. on April 20, 1959, two police officers riding in a patrol car noticed a Mercury automobile on Broadway, a street in downtown San Diego. The police officers observed that the Mercury had no front license plate and they stopped the Mercury to investigate this violation of the Vehicle Code. Wiederspohn, Galceran's co-defendant at the trial, was found to be driving the Mercury automobile but he did not have a driver's license. Galceran and two other persons were passengers in the automobile. In response to questioning, Wiederspohn stated that there had been no front license plate on the vehicle. Upon being asked for registration, Wiederspohn produced a registration which had the name of another person on it. None of the occupants of the car was the person to whom the vehicle was registered. Widerspohn at first said that he had purchased the Mercury automobile from a used car lot, but upon further questioning he said that he had purchased it from a friend. One of the other occupants of the automobile claimed to have registered the vehicle, but it was not registered in his name. The registration slip produced by Wiederspohn seemed irregular because the registration number was written in with a pen instead of being stamped on with a rubber stamp. The officer compared the registration slip with one on a car nearby to confirm this. Wiederspohn could produce no other evidence of his ownership of the car. The officer had prepared a citation for Wiederspohn charging him with driving without a license and failing to properly register the vehicle. The officer then asked the occupants of the car to step out of it to enable him to look for further evidence of the ownership of the automobile. The officer looked inside the car from the outside with his head and shoulders inside the car. He saw a piece of paper protruding from the hearter vent under the dashboard on the right side. The paper proved to be a piece of newspaper written in Spanish and containing a quantity of marijuana. Later in the same evening Officer Tulley had a conversation with Galceran. Galceran said he did not remember the last time he had been to Tijuana; that he had not been there and then he refused to say anything on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate him. Shortly thereafter at the police station a search was made of Galceran's clothing and debris or dregs of marijuana were found in his sport shirt pocket.

During the following morning Officer Ritchey of the Narcotics Detail of the San Diego Police Department had a conversation with Galceran in which Galceran said that he and Wiederspohn had gone to Tijuana the preceding afternoon and purchased $4 worth of gas. Upon being asked if he had purchased any marijuana, Galceran stated 'absolutely not' and added that he never used it, never smoked it and didn't know what it looked like.

Wiederspohn made a full confession to the police in which he said that Galceran, using money contributed in part by both men, had purchased the marijuana from a taxi driver in a Tijuana bar. Since this confession was made outside the hearing of Galceran, as to him it was hearsay and was properly not considered by the court below in its determination of his case. Neither Galceran nor Wiederspohn took the stand in his own defense.

After sentence was imposed, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and order denying his motion for new trial and requested this court to appoint an attorney to represent him on his appeal. Both defendant and his attorney at the trial were requested to inform this court of possible meritorious grounds of appeal. Both defendant and his trial counsel failed to respond to this request and no suggestions as to what errors defendant relied on in taking his appeal have been received by this court.

This court then made an independent examination of the record and determined that it would not be of value to the defendant or helpful to the court to have appellate counsel appointed. People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 331 P.2d 42; People v. Marsh, 170 Cal.App.2d 284, 338 P.2d 495. The defendant was informed that his request for counsel had been denied and he was requested to file an opening brief or make such other showing as he might desire.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. People v. Antista, 129 Cal.App.2d 47, 276 P.2d 177.

"We must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict." People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778, 780.

At the trial, defendant's attorney objected to the introduction of the evidence of the marijuana found in the vehicle and on defendant's person, citing the cases of People v. Gale, 46 Cal.2d 253, 294 P.2d 13, and People v. Molarius, 146 Cal.App.2d 129, 303 P.2d 350, in support of his objection to the introduction of this evidence. We have examined these cases and other cases bearing on the same issue of law and the evidence in the record and have concluded that the search here conducted by the officers was reasonable and that the evidence resulting therefrom was properly received and considered by the court.

...